April 21, 2009

"Obama was correct not to walk out on the speech. But... [w]hen Obama spoke later, he should have prefaced his promising call for an 'equal partnership' with other countries in the hemisphere with some strong pushback against those who would rather relive the insults of the past than move forward."

Obama is a leftist college professor and a Weather Underground groupie; he identifies with leftist politicians like Chavez and Ortega more than he does with the average American, and agrees with the gist of what Ortega and Chavez have to say. It would be hard for him to come up with some kind of angry response to them on the fly and make it sound real.

Ann's point linking racism of voters to blandness of Obama, I took, to mean either 1) people voted for Obama because he was black, ignoring negative things like blandness and/or 2) people would be scared to vote for a black guy who wasn't bland, but Obama's blandness made them feel safe voting for him.

Regarding Obama's unwillingness or inability to counter Ortega or Chavez, I think it is more that Obama doesn't feel any particular allegience to this country, so insults directed at the US are not taken personally. No need to defend against a slur not directed at him, right?

That's an interesting analysis; I'd certainly like to think Obama is pulling the wool over Ortega and Chavez's eyes the way he did those of genteel American conservatives, and is in fact softening them up for some kind of strategy that undermines their baleful influence.

(I think it is more that Obama doesn't feel any particular allegience to this country, so insults directed at the US are not taken personally.)

I would agree. If attending these summits is just to sit there and have some third world crank trash your country, what's the point unless of course you don't particularly disagree with the trashing. Considering he sat through 20 years of goddam AmeriKKKA on Sunday mornings he probably thought Ortega was being unusually kind.

mporcius wrote ...and is in fact softening them up for some kind of strategy that undermines their baleful influence.

Sadly, I wouldn't go that far -- though it's hard to say that Bush 43 had any good answers either. Ortega is a mosquito, a buzzing irritant, but Chavez clearly benefits from the oppositional role. Blandness may be the best approach.

I do think dropping barriers to Cuba would be a good thing. Cuba is in such disarray at the moment that it could be coopted.

Interestingly enough, Obama's foreign policy seems to embody the "humility" that George W. Bush promised us before events demanded a different path.

I was listening to Obama's response in regards to his graciousness to Ortega, and you know, it was actually in a certain way, defensible. It seems to be an entirely pragmatic view, that the US would be better served by doing business with oppressive governments rather than trying to upset the apple cart and cutting ourselves out of some very lucrative deals.

Of course this "pragmatic" course discounts morality, and puts us on the side of oppressors rather than the oppressed. But really, what do Chavez and Castro's victims have to offer us compared to the oil and beachfront property that the dictator's have?

Of course this "pragmatic" course discounts morality, and puts us on the side of oppressors rather than the oppressed. It's nothing new. FDR called it "the good neighbor" policy. By promoted stability over intervention the U.S. went along with the type of petty dictators that Chavez and Ortega aspire to become.

Conservative=bland.Conservative=racist (garage, you off all people should know this).Ergo, bland=racist.

Just kidding, of course.

However, I disagree with the idea that liking a bland black man is racist. In fact, I think that to think of non-bland black personalities as being somehow more representative of true blackness, which would be a requirement to having the view that it is racist to see a bland black person as preferable, is itself racist. It is a major insult to black people to think that Rev. Wright or Rev. Jackson or Rev. Sharpton, to name a few, are more representative of blacks than, say, Barack Obama or Bill Cosby.

(I do think dropping barriers to Cuba would be a good thing. Cuba is in such disarray at the moment that it could be coopted.)

Would it? I mean we're the only nation that has an embargo on Cuba which means it can trade with eveyone else yet it's been an economic basket case since, oh, Castro took power. So if the hated Yanquis start flocking to Cuba's beaches does that mean Fidel and Raul will be tossed aside and freedom will ring? Or will it just be like China where the facade of a tourist state covers up those nasty political dungeons.

So when Ortega was going on his 50 minute rant against the evils the US has committed against Latin America, Mr. Barely was doing what and thinking what? He sat there like a simp, not a furrow in his brow, not even a show of mild irritation. So what was he thinking, "Thank goodness I'm not being mentioned or blamed for this." Hence his 3 month old quip. This man is a weak, incompetent fraud. How you people who elected him can sit with yourselves just fine after this display of total and utter spinelessness is beyond me. All this did is show Mr. Barely as a tool, a punching bag apologist that lets his opponents, allies, and enemies take stabs at for all of the ills they can redress against America. I haven't heard a single repudiation from this pussy of a man against any of these charges labeled against my country. Not one. While leaders like Sarkozy nail it on the head. Dear God in heaven I never thought I would agree with a frenchman.

Having it a little bit both ways are we? If anti-black or fear-of-blacks racism influenced the voting public votes to any significant degree, Obama would never have been elected at all, bland or not. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. Many voted for Obama precisely because he's black, some kind of a weirded-out guilt trip balm.

with some strong pushback against those who would rather relive the insults of the past than move forward."This is Eugene Robinson, a regular on the pretend news anchor Keith Olbermann's leftwing fraud news show, making this point.

Why the President didn't push back using his "non-bland" skills still mystifies me.

And it's not an issue of American pride or jingoism. It's an issue of fighting back against the history that the Marxist left are trying to promote.

Hoosier Daddy said... (I do think dropping barriers to Cuba would be a good thing. Cuba is in such disarray at the moment that it could be coopted.)

Would it? I mean we're the only nation that has an embargo on Cuba which means it can trade with eveyone else yet it's been an economic basket case since, oh, Castro took power. So if the hated Yanquis start flocking to Cuba's beaches does that mean Fidel and Raul will be tossed aside and freedom will ring? Or will it just be like China where the facade of a tourist state covers up those nasty political dungeons.

10:28 AMI am afraid it will be the second. Cuba has had millions of European, Canadian and Latin American tourists every year for the past twenty years. How has that changed the regime?

Most tourists don't see and won't see the 200 prisons (compared to them, GITMO is a five star hotel, by the way). Most tourists do and will think that the abject misery in which 99% of Cubans live is "quaint", and "ethnic", "part of our culture"

On the other hand, it may finally take away the latest (not older than 20 years) excuse for the regime to continue the fake state of siege on which it has survived and by which it has justified thousands of political prisoners and acts of repression.

I am also sure, however, that they will come up with another reason. It has happened before. They can turn friend to foe and back in a forthnight, as it happened with Russia after the USSR collapsed.

Or will it just be like China where the facade of a tourist state covers up those nasty political dungeons.That could be a step forward from Cuba as decades-old security threat to Cuba as run-of-the-mill disfunctional country.

Peter, no, it is a museum now since the Castro brothers were briefly imprisoned there in 1954-55after the attack to Cuartel Moncada. Funny, they very conveniently "forgot" to tell us that the rest of the prison continued to be so until the early 1970s. I learned that in Miami.

And, by the way, because this always happens, let me explain something about myself:

I was born in Cuba in 1973. I left the country in 1995. I was brought up and educated in Cuba during the 1980s and early '90s. I lived there during the "good" times of Soviet satellitism, and the really bad times of the early 1990s. My family did not own land before 1959. They were working middle class who had been born poor. My mother was a strong early supporter who became disillusioned over time. I was a believer of some sort in my early teens. I know enough Marxist theory to make these trolls heads spin.

Bland? Obama is not just bland. President Obama's response at the Summit of the Americas: “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”This Obama self-absolving statement reeks of narcissism. Obama represents the USA AND the actions of the USA throughout history ---JUST because he was 3 months old (actually Obama was still in utero at the time) does not mean Obama does not bear the weight and consequences of the history of the USA. If he is aware of the history.

We have no reason to keep the failed Trade Embargo and visitor's ban in place.

If we make it standard, for anyone that has "persecuted dissidents" in jail then we add China, Mexico, Vietnam, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Burma, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Morocco, Pakistan, most subsharan African countries, N Korea, Haiti, Turkey to a list we prohibit trade with and all Americans but those privileged with ethnic ties to the Prohibited Country.

Of course, we would have also had to have past embargos and travel bans on many other nations "until they democritized and stopped persecuting dissidents" - Spain, S Korea, the Philippines, Peru, Paraguay, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Greece under the Junta, all of Eastern Europe, most of Central America, Russia, Thailand, Indonesia. And countless little chickenshit other countries and island nations.

Heck, at one point if we treated all countries like the Exiles subverted out foreign policy out on Cuba - we would have had, around 1970, 40 countries Americans were allowed to go to, and about 90 we were banned from. (About the same standard of controlling citizens free movement abroad that the Soviet Union had in 1970).

================I think Althouse is right. Being a non-threatening black was important. It applies to other candidates who came out of a smaller base with great appeal to a particular demographic but unable to get mainstream because their behavior or policies were seen as only favoring "their people". Not just blacks. People like Goldwater, McGovern, George Wallace, Buchanan, Palin. And of course Jesse Jackson and race hustler Al. (No wonder Jackson wanted to rip Barry's nuts off - he realized that if he had not been mired in his perpetually angry and aggrieved political persona, he might have had a real shot..)

Ann Althouse said...It's (...Obama is very bland. For some reason — possibly vaguely racist — American liked the bland.)... supposed to mean that American enthusiasm for a particularly mild-mannered, phlegmatic black man reveals something about how they feel about other black men.

Is it vaguely racist that you use the term American here as code for White?

Near 20% of the Americans who voted for Obama are black. That was 96-99% of the black vote. They voted for his blackness not his blandness.

Was that vaguely racist?

For some it seems it was White America that was on trial in Nov 08. They would be found guilty of the charge of racism if they didn't vote for Obama and guilty of the charge of being vaguely racist if they did?

What does it take for a White American to be judged not racist or even vaguely racist? Heide Klum? Kim Kardashian? Ann Dunham?

What does it take for anybody black to be judged even slightly racist at any time? Willie Horton? Coral Watts? The Carr brothers? Al Sharpton?

Bland in demeanor to me means not being able to lipread a single word. Truth told, lipreading isn't all that effective anyway, only a small percentage of vocalized sound changes are visible on the lips, notwithstanding signers focus on lips while signs fall to the periphery in order to make out the exact word being conveyed. Signers exaggerate lipped words even when no sound exits the mouth. I always have Obama on mute, which in his case silences him completely as nothing comes across, absolutely. Like Greta Van Suseren, the lips are so tight and unexpressive trying to read them is like lipreading a Clutch Cargo cartoon. That to me means blandness in expression.

Though I rather like him meeting with but not responding to the provocations of Marxist leaders. I think it's the right thing to do. I doubt he'll actually buddy up with those chumps. If anything, he's already positioned to out Marx and to out socialist them all. Has he not already redistributed and seized control of more dinero y comercio than they could ever have dreamed? That's action, and just the beginning! Hardly bland.

You say that the exiles subverted the US foreign policy. I would like to remind you that when the embargo was put in place, Cuban exiles were neither as numerous nor as powerful as they became later. It was a US decision.

And while on that topic, have you stopped to think how a small community became so influential? It's simple: hard, backbreaking work. You should try it, Herr Dr. G.

And, let's make this clear, the main problem in Cuba is not its government's "problems" with the US. The main problem in Cuba is its government's "problems" with its people. Of course, people like C4 and other fascist isolationists don't give a rat's ass about that. I do because it is my problem too even if I am an American citizen now. I still have family over there. My brother is one of those dissidents Herr Goebbels here treats so disrespectfully and disdainfully. I have friends in Miami who came around the same time I did, whom used to be frequent guests at Villa Marista, Security of State's torture facility in La Habana.

So, the benefits of lifting the embargo and travel restriction will have to be seen, but count me amongst the skeptics.

I hate that I am defending Obama, but what would be the point of responding? Ignoring the remarks seems to me to be the best way to show that they are marginal and unimportant. Everyone in the room (and out of the room) knows who has the power. Responding would have made Ortega and Chavez bigger "heroes" to their supporters.

Here's an irony, I don't recall that Bush was criticized for not responding in such situations--as was his habit--because he was such an inept speaker. It's BHO's giftedness that leads to the critique.

Considering that the U.S. has tried to kill both Ortega and Chavez, don't you think we can be big enough to sit through a few (mildly) critical speeches?

Also, we tried the whole "respect us because of our unyielding dogmatism" thing with Bush. It can be satisfying, sure, but you know that people in other countries don't just roll over and say, "you win, big dog! USA really IS the bestest!" No, people all around the world decide that the USA is a tyrant deaf to the needs of others. It makes everything we need to do harder-- for what? A sense of jingoistic satisfaction? That's idiotic. Explain to me again how making a good faith attempt to listen to what other leaders are saying without immediately getting on a high horse makes Obama weak. In my world, it's called being the bigger man. Try it sometime.

If Obama is such the "gifted" speaker do you mind clarifying for m what the hell he meant when he said this after the Ortega Address-

"a reminder for us in the United States that if our only interaction with many of these countries is drug interdiction, if our only interaction is military, then we may not be developing the connections that can, over time, increase our influence and have a beneficial effect when we need to try to move policies that are of concern to us forward in the region."[LA Times]

Can you tell me which countries our only interaction with is drug interdiction and military?

Because even when we do military operations we simultaneously do humanitarian works-we fix the infrastructure.

So I don't get what the Gifted Orator Obama is saying here.

As a member of the military community it's sounding pretty damn insulting.

I also don' think it's helpful for him to be spreading a sentiment like that when he is representing the United States down in Latin America while hanging out with the local thugocracy.

mccallen3: "giftedness", eh? I believe I will disagree with you there.

And as for Bush, yes, he mangled words here and there, but he more often than not had something meaningful to say, and I had no problem understanding what it was. I appreciated that more than this apparent "giftedness" we have now.

(No, people all around the world decide that the USA is a tyrant deaf to the needs of others. It makes everything we need to do harder-- for what? A sense of jingoistic satisfaction? That's idiotic. )

Tyrant deaf to the needs of others? Gee I really wish we were so the rest of the world can then look to oh, say, China or Russia the next time a tsunami hits some third world shit hole. Or Africa needs a couple ten billion in assistance fighting AIDs, or food and supplies airlifted into some earthquake zone in Pakistan. This bullshit about the US being a tyrant sounds a lot like some sixteen year old brat calling her dad a fucking asshole cause he took the car keys away.

Ann- "Yes. As in his campaign, Obama is very bland. For some reason — possibly vaguely racist — American liked the bland. But at some point, bland is not what you want."

I have no idea what the hell that even means.

Obama is "bland?"

He's "vaguely racist?"

Based on the following I really don't think Americans are concerned about how "exciting" Obama needs to be as a leader, and I've never read anything even remotely associated with him being considered "racist" in any way.

Hoosier Daddy, the point isn't that it's right that people in the world hate America, it's that it's what people think. And people thinking that hurts us. And since they think that based on impressions and hype rather than hard reality, we can also change what they think, because it's to our advantage to do so. It's some basic, grownup art-of-war stuff, which a lot of gung-ho people don't seem to want to understand.

Kill was too strong a word-- but the US has tried to overthrow Chavez and Ortega...

CIA involvement in Chavez coup plot. If you think this is the extent of our involvement, you are naive.

As for Ortega, you may recall that Republicans sold weapons to iran to fund a rebel group in nicaragua that fought a murderous civil war against ortega's party for nine years in which tens of thousands of citizens were killed. does that give him the leeway to make a fiery little speech? Oh, and the CIA probably killed his brother. As for there not being proof... again, it's a little naive to expect there to be proof of cia covert operations. I guess you think all the CIA does is make clippings of foreign newspapers.

John - "Regarding Obama's unwillingness or inability to counter Ortega or Chavez, I think it is more that Obama doesn't feel any particular allegience to this country..."

Where do you come up with this insanity?

Are you on drugs?

Drunk?

It's one thing to say you disagree with his politics, policies, means of expression or even that he's not what you want in a President, but where does the bullshit claim that he "doesn't feel any particular allegience (allegiance) to this country" possibly come from?

Montagne, that article states the CIA knew about the coup. There is nothing about an assassination attempt. What Chavez may say about that needs to be very carefully examined. Threats of assasination have been very effectively exploited by tyrants since times immemorial to repress, torture and scare their people.

Yes, I am sure the CIA was involved with the Contras in the 1980s, just as Cuba's Departamento America was involved in propping up the FSLN in the 1970s. That involvement continued until Ortega agreed to and lost an election in 1990. You should read Nuestros Años Verdeolivo, a special report by Chilean daily La Tercera, which details Cuban involvement. It does so because it reconstruct the lives of many Chilean leftists who were used by Fidel as mercenaries in Nicaragua, Angola, Ethiopia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, etc. Another recommended book is The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World. It is enlightening to say the least. And Camilo Ortega was killed in combat with Somoza's troops, according to the official Cuban and Sandinista propagandas. I recommend you read about that too. Spanish would be helpful.

(Hoosier Daddy, the point isn't that it's right that people in the world hate America, it's that it's what people think. And people thinking that hurts us. And since they think that based on impressions and hype rather than hard reality, we can also change what they think, because it's to our advantage to do so. )

So aside from the humanitarian deeds we now have to lay prostate and beg forgiveness for perceived sins? Really? I'm reminded of that Norwegian UN official who called us 'stingy' when we didn't pony up enough money in his eyes to help the tsunami victims. Never mind the US carrier group who was on site providing rescue ops and clean water.

Ever stop and think we're hated because a good chunk of the world are simply ungrateful bastards? Ever stop and wonder why we're vilified for Iraq yet Russia can slaughter a few hundred thousand Chechens and no one blinks and eye? Ever wonder why Spain wants to try Bush for 'war crimes' yet Sudan sat on the UN Human Rights commission?

And somehow we're supposed to change their perception of us? You know if that hurts us then so be it.

As in his campaign, Obama is very bland. For some reason — possibly vaguely racist — American liked the bland. But at some point, bland is not what you want."Non-threatening" is probably a better description than "bland". A firebrand Barack Obama would have had no more of a chance of winning the Democratic Party nomination from Hillary Clinton than Jesse Jackson had beating Walter Mondale in 1984.

The situation with Obama -- both in his campaign before the election, and in his governance since -- is the exact same as David Dinkins, when he was elected mayor over Giuliani in 1989. In a time when Al Sharpton was just coming to prominence in New York, David Dinkins never gets elected if he's not bland/non-threatening. But since that personality is hard to fake during an entire campaign, a low-key, don't-make-waves-with-your-base candidate is going to be the same once in office, and that's the danger. Obama will challenge Republicans, conservatives and possibly a few foreign leaders if he has a general consensus within the Democratic Party. But he's not going to go out on a limb and challenge his key supporters or the power brokers within his party, because that's not his personality.

Any challenge that does come won't be until and unless he's faced with a post-1994 Bill Clinton scenario, where failure to stand up to the base on at least a couple of issues means re-election defeat (and even Clinton bucked much of his own party in 1993 by supporting NAFTA). And while his current path may not be good for Democrats up for re-election in 2010, Obama doesn't have to change course and stand up to anyone within his own party or special interest groups for another 24-30 months.

Your last comment was particulary foolhardy for two reasons: (1) It is rather easy for anybody to understand what Bush meant in your quotes in context. (2) You attacked Darcy. You're on my shitlist now.

(CIA involvement in Chavez coup plot. If you think this is the extent of our involvement, you are naive.)

MM did you even read that article? Seriously I think you saw CIA and coup and simply assumed we had folks behind the scenes. If you take 5 minutes to actually read your own link you'll see that the CIA was aware of the plot. That doesn't mean it was supported, backed or financed. The equivalent would be to say the CIA was aware the sun came up today but in reality had nothing to do with it.

Evidently your biases are strong enough that you'll disregard your own evidence just to reinforce your own belief.

Now now garage. Darcy doesn't get a pass because she's hot. Darcy is special because she's one of the nicer commenters here. This Jeremy dude is just trouble IMO. Supreme polemist perhaps, but a bit over the top sometimes.

chickenlittle said...Your last comment was particulary foolhardy for two reasons: (1) It is rather easy for anybody to understand what Bush meant in your quotes in context. (2) You attacked Darcy. You're on my shitlist now."

First of all I didn't "attack" anybody.

Reading comprehension?

Second, it doesn't surprise me that YOU can understand what George was trying to say.

"it's merely a form of expression"It's a form more like flatulence or defacation, an expression akin to grunts and shouts, part of a caveman's glossary, or used by sixth graders to shock their 4th grade friends.

But it exposes a rather failed intellect, an aborted philosophy, a decadent thinker, a bore.

Jeremy you are disgusting, Un-American, un-patriotic, and despicable. If it was up to you all criticism would be banned and outlawed until Obama was out of office. You are right up there with those others who hate the American people and want to stifle criticism, free speech, and dissent; Harry Reid and Jan Schakowsky. Like them, you are also a liar and a hypocrite. You really should consider a career in leftist politics. You would fit in with the crooks, liars, thieves, and tyrants.

You are the epitome of hatred toward your fellow citizens who disagree with the current administration policies and who revere real American values- self reliance, self determination, individual prosperity, individual rights and personal responsibility without government interference.

The magnificent Mr Obama is not bland when Teleprompter Guy is doing his speech. Sadly, he is very, very Bland at all other times he is performing his roles. The point that the Professor makes is that Obama has always succeeded by being the nice guy in his Good Cop/Bad Cop routines (The Black Attack Dog type politicians were the Bad Cops to Obama's Good Cop on the 100 year long issue of absolving guilt about the burden of America's racial "injustice") all thru his professional life. THE QUESTION, is when we do need the bad cop back, then who will we turn to? Obama is only confusing a few enemies for now, until they re-group and attack the USA with a new set of strategies they can use in a Surge against the hated Collossus to the North. This is analagous to actually repealing the death penalty: all is well and we look so nice, but then the criminals figure out the Good Cop will do nothing more than the same jail time evan if they execute the witnesses.

Blogger traditionalguy said..."The magnificent Mr Obama is not bland when Teleprompter Guy is doing his speech."

Whatever that's supposed to mean.

Then has had more open press conferences and town hall meeting in his first 90 days than Bush had in his last two years...and it's tough answering questions with a fucking teleprompter...as if Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. ALL didn't use them (Reagan couldn't remember his name without files cards...read one of his biographies.)

Nichevo said..."At least I must thank you for answering a straight question with a straight answer."

I always do.

As to: "Now the followup - what were you before you were an atheist? How were you raised? If that is too complicated, what was your family?"

I have no idea of the relevance, but: My mother is Jewish, which, as far as the Jews are concerned, makes me Jewish, although my mother never practiced the religion nor have I. I was baptized Catholic, and later in life confirmed Lutheran. (I like to think of it as covering all the bases...just in case.)

I was agnostic for many years, then realized I just didn't have the guts to admit I was really an Atheist.

I've probably read 25 books on various religions and believe the one true course to follow is based in the "golden rule," although like most humans, do not always adhere to the rule set out.

*Especially with many of the right wing heathens who hang out here, but most of what I do here is because I know it aggravates the living hell out of them.

Jeremy, can you please point us to your personal blog? I just cannot get enough detail about your background and beliefs!

* What places have you visited for 24 hours or more that you can appraise with your unerring critical thinking skills?* What is it about your life experience that leads you to believe that people who cannot see the world with your eyes are either abusing drugs, alcohol or both?* What should people who aren't you be saying about our President and when should we say it?

Jeremy... That was a complement to President Obama that he can use the Teleprompter so eloquently. My point was that his not using it, and appearing as just another nice guy, is a strategy that has an expiration date when we have enemies are going up against us. The only answer to my question is that Obama will need to revert to teleprompter reading from some harsh and arrogant speech writers one day, or we are finished. The Monroe Doctrine was the President announcing, harshly and arrogantly, that any European power who began to use the Mexican, Central American, and South American countries as client states to start attacks on the USA would be treated as having declared war on the USA. Whose client state has Chavez made Venezuela into? Are we going to be a Good Cop and say, "wow thats not nice", or are we going to go to war? The USA did not survive this long by being a Good Cop.

According to the Soviet military attache, Castro's advice--albeit offered somewhat obliquely--was that the Soviets should launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the United States. I hold this against Castro and wonder why so many on the left are so tolerant of a man who would have incinerated their families if he were given a button to finger....I suppose the bright side to Obama is that if here to appear on a podium with Castro before a Latin American audience he would receive more applause than Castro. I suppose the down side to Obama is that a Latin American audience who approves of Castro also approves of Obama.

Jeremy...It's an issue of style. I pull for Obama to succeed as My President. That insanely crafty moron Bush did protect us well until the financial collapse. Now please watch what happens to the American economy after Obama has inflated our currency out of usefullness for the world trade reserve currency. The make nice with the tyrants, that Bush once challenged to duels, may buy us time to fix the economy. But there will be a moment to become American SOBs again, unless living as free men has no more appeal to anyone.

Anybody here the report today that Cheney was lying when he told his good buddy Sean Hannity that he asked the CIA to put out the memos that show the "success" of the torture techniques?

The CIA today denied any such request was ever made.

Hard to believe...Dick (and I do mean DICK) Cheney...lying?

What's this world coming to?That's because the CIA didn't receive the request to my knowledge, but that Cheney asked The National Archives to release those memos or ask the CIA too. I think there may have been some error in the reporting. Your point is really doesn't matter because the content of what Cheney is saying is more important. Release the memos like he asked and you should see what the outcome of those memos contains. I have no idea what is in them, but I suspect that Cheney knows a whole lot about them.

Not to mention that Mr. Barely's reversal in sending possible prosecutions to the Justice Dept. today with the backing of Feinstein of lawyers who gave their legal opinions on such treatment of terrorists with regards to waterboarding is highly, highly suspect. Further leading people to surmise that this is the bone that moveon.org and the KOS kids have been waiting for to be thrown their way. The rabid left will be perceived as yanking this frauds chains and he is willing to throw them the meat to ausage them. I wonder if Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her idiot left cadre that agreed to these types of treatments will have the threat of prosecution hanging over their heads too. This whole thing is nothing but a McCarthy style witch hunt and I wonder if you are going to defend it.

And you know it too.How do you conclude that I'm defending Cheney? He doesn't need my defense. All I was trying to say was that there may have been a confusion in reporting about which agency received the request to release memos relating to Obama reversing himself on prosecuting lawyers who give legal opinions as to the legality of the methods used to extract information from KSM (Khalid Sheik Mohammad). I don't know whether he lied or not and frankly that's not even the point now is it?

If you think he lied, that's your problem, but then again considering your stretch here anyone who doesn't believe as you do is a liar even moreso from people in power like Cheney. Whoop-de-friggin-do. What's next, Cheney lied, people died? Get over yourself with this buffoonish and childish line of thinking. It's embarrassing to see you even do it.

Jeremy, kindly don't be a fool. I'm not defending you, exactly, I'm apologizing for walking you into the path of that. You are due for a slapping from me, yes, but it belongs on the other thread and lost context here, which made you look a bit of a fool, which was not my cunning plan.

As for "cheap shots" I have to take that seriously, given that it takes one to know one and you should know all about cheap shots. An unscrupulous fellow like you will certainly abuse any unhedged statement of support from an opponent for as long as your attention span can sustain it.

I don't know what I can do to walk the cat back for you. I'm certainly less sorry for you than I was, but I did not speak up for your sweet sake but because I believed it to be right action, to redress a wrong that I might have contributed to.

And your talk of my speaking to impress friends, wingnut friends, or whatever is just goofy. Null program. We are not speaking the same language. (Mine is English.)

I mean, would it not occur to you that you and I don't likely see eye to eye on much? (Yes, I have been meaning to turn to Mosley, if he is who I am thinking of - Devil in a Blue Dress? Let me in turn refer you to the works of Rex Stout, if I failed to mention him in my profile.) It was certainly amusing to find myself in the position, and I did not refrain from noting it.

But if you're a misanthrope, that's your business. I'm sure that it is as illiberal (in the good old sense of "liberal") to stereotype atheists as it is Jews, but I cannot escape the observation that the atheists I have known have almost always tended to be unhappy, angry people, and that atheism did not seem to help them. (Heinlein, I suppose, might be a counterexample, but I'm afraid the case of Piper seems to fit my bill.)

So, good luck with that. I'd prefer to appreciate what positive qualities I find in you - I don't need to hate my interlocutors - but I'll treat you like a caricature if you insist that I do so.